D. L. SHEFFIELD, ET UX.,
v.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree against the mortgagors, modifying the principal debt amount from $1,982.38 to $1,909.00. The court held that a promissory note for fertilizers constitutes valid evidence of indebtedness when the payee's promise to deliver fertilizers on credit provides sufficient consideration, even if delivery occurs after the note is executed.
A promissory note constitutes valid evidence of indebtedness when the payee's promise to deliver fertilizers on credit of the note provides sufficient consideration at the time of execution, even if actual delivery occurs later. The decree was properly entered but should be modified to reduce the principal debt to $1,909.00 from $1,982.38.
“The note itself constituted an evidence of indebtedness when executed and delivered, whether at that time any fertilizers had been delivered or not, since the payee's promise to deliver fertilizers on the credit of the executed note was itself at the time the note was signed, a valuable consideration sufficient to support the note's validity”
Establishes that a promissory note can be valid evidence of indebtedness based on the payee's promise to deliver goods in the future, even before actual delivery occurs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mortgagors executed a $3,000 promissory note payable to Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation, reciting that it was given for fertilizers receive…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
— This was a mortgage foreclosure wherein the appellee obtained a decree against the appellant for' the sum of $1,982.38 as the principal debt. The facts are that the mortgagors executed a promissory note for $3,000.00 payable to the order of Virginia Carolina Chemical Corporation, the note reciting that it was' given for fertilizers received by the makers. The note was secured by a mortgage which was herein foreclosed.
The note itself constituted an evidence of indebtedness when executed and delivered, whether at that time any fertilizers had been delivered or not, since the payee’s promise to deliver fertilizers on the credit of the executed note was itself at the time the note was signed, a valuable consideration sufficient to support the note’s validity, at least to the extent that the promise to deliver has been subsequently performed by the payee in consideration of *722the previous execution and delivery of the note at the time when the mortgage was made.
If any error was committed by the court with reference to entering a decree before the cause was set down by the complainant in accordance with Chancery Rules 85 and 86 it is not affirmatively made to appear by the record. Where the record is silent as' to whether or not a chancery cause has been properly set down for final hearing in accordance with the rules, the presumption is in favor of the regularity of the proceedings which will ■ not be overturned merely because the record does not affirmatively show compliance with rules' of procedure. The presumption is that the rules were complied with, else the court would not have entered its decree.
To the extent that the decree is for a principal indebtedness in excess of the principal sum of $1,909.00 the judgment is excessive and should be modified by changing the sum of $1,982.38 to $1,909.00 as it appears in the decree. Otherwise the decree is correct and should be affirmed. It is therefore ordered that the decree appealed from, as modified by a reduction of the principal debt from $1,982.38 to $1,909.00 be affirmed.
Decree modified and affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 141 Fla. 758 (Fla. 1940)…hat such recital is without foundation, we must take it as being correct and sufficient to show that due notice was actually given. Therefore, the appellants are bound by the record. See Sheffield, et al., v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation, 114 Fla. 721, 154 Sou. 833; Feming, et al., v. Ossinsky, 117 Fla. 348, 158 Sou. 116. Fourteenth Question : “The court below in the final decree entered herein decided that the exceptions filed by the defendants, Powell and wife, to the report of the special mas…